Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 741 | control, N = 371 | treatment, N = 371 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 74 | 50.70 ± 12.55 (25 - 74) | 50.31 ± 13.37 (25 - 74) | 51.09 ± 11.84 (31 - 72) | 0.791 |
gender | 74 | 0.802 | |||
f | 51 (69%) | 25 (68%) | 26 (70%) | ||
m | 23 (31%) | 12 (32%) | 11 (30%) | ||
occupation | 74 | 0.884 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.7%) | 2 (5.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 7 (9.5%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
other | 2 (2.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
part_time | 14 (19%) | 7 (19%) | 7 (19%) | ||
retired | 15 (20%) | 7 (19%) | 8 (22%) | ||
self_employ | 3 (4.1%) | 1 (2.7%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
student | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
unemploy | 22 (30%) | 12 (32%) | 10 (27%) | ||
marital | 74 | 0.769 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
divore | 9 (12%) | 6 (16%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
married | 16 (22%) | 7 (19%) | 9 (24%) | ||
none | 42 (57%) | 21 (57%) | 21 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.1%) | 1 (2.7%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
edu | 74 | 0.954 | |||
bachelor | 22 (30%) | 9 (24%) | 13 (35%) | ||
diploma | 13 (18%) | 8 (22%) | 5 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
primary | 5 (6.8%) | 2 (5.4%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 8 (11%) | 4 (11%) | 4 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 15 (20%) | 8 (22%) | 7 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
fam_income | 74 | 0.932 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (5.4%) | 1 (2.7%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (5.4%) | 2 (5.4%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (6.8%) | 2 (5.4%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (5.4%) | 3 (8.1%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
20001_above | 12 (16%) | 6 (16%) | 6 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 10 (14%) | 7 (19%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (14%) | 4 (11%) | 6 (16%) | ||
6001_8000 | 7 (9.5%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (9.5%) | 3 (8.1%) | 4 (11%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (12%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (14%) | ||
medication | 74 | 64 (86%) | 33 (89%) | 31 (84%) | 0.496 |
onset_duration | 74 | 15.35 ± 11.44 (0 - 56) | 16.67 ± 12.76 (1 - 56) | 14.03 ± 9.94 (0 - 35) | 0.324 |
onset_age | 74 | 35.35 ± 14.02 (14 - 64) | 33.64 ± 13.39 (14 - 58) | 37.06 ± 14.60 (15 - 64) | 0.297 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 741 | control, N = 371 | treatment, N = 371 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 74 | 3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.11 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.16 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 0.850 |
recovery_stage_b | 74 | 18.01 ± 2.60 (9 - 23) | 17.95 ± 2.66 (9 - 23) | 18.08 ± 2.59 (13 - 23) | 0.825 |
ras_confidence | 74 | 30.42 ± 4.75 (19 - 43) | 29.89 ± 4.19 (19 - 40) | 30.95 ± 5.26 (20 - 43) | 0.344 |
ras_willingness | 74 | 12.14 ± 1.96 (7 - 15) | 11.92 ± 1.85 (9 - 15) | 12.35 ± 2.07 (7 - 15) | 0.346 |
ras_goal | 74 | 17.57 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 17.49 ± 2.93 (12 - 24) | 17.65 ± 3.10 (12 - 24) | 0.818 |
ras_reliance | 74 | 13.18 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 12.97 ± 2.58 (8 - 18) | 13.38 ± 3.03 (8 - 20) | 0.537 |
ras_domination | 74 | 9.99 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 10.51 ± 2.06 (6 - 15) | 9.46 ± 2.42 (3 - 14) | 0.048 |
symptom | 74 | 30.14 ± 9.80 (14 - 56) | 31.24 ± 9.60 (14 - 52) | 29.03 ± 10.00 (15 - 56) | 0.334 |
slof_work | 74 | 22.80 ± 4.90 (10 - 30) | 22.68 ± 4.44 (15 - 30) | 22.92 ± 5.39 (10 - 30) | 0.833 |
slof_relationship | 74 | 25.82 ± 6.01 (11 - 35) | 25.51 ± 6.17 (13 - 35) | 26.14 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 0.660 |
satisfaction | 74 | 20.77 ± 6.83 (5 - 32) | 19.22 ± 6.44 (5 - 29) | 22.32 ± 6.94 (5 - 32) | 0.050 |
mhc_emotional | 74 | 11.20 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 10.70 ± 3.41 (3 - 17) | 11.70 ± 4.22 (4 - 18) | 0.266 |
mhc_social | 74 | 14.86 ± 5.47 (6 - 30) | 15.16 ± 5.48 (7 - 30) | 14.57 ± 5.51 (6 - 26) | 0.643 |
mhc_psychological | 74 | 22.28 ± 6.08 (6 - 36) | 21.76 ± 5.69 (10 - 36) | 22.81 ± 6.48 (6 - 36) | 0.460 |
resilisnce | 74 | 16.62 ± 4.53 (6 - 27) | 16.32 ± 4.38 (6 - 24) | 16.92 ± 4.72 (7 - 27) | 0.576 |
social_provision | 74 | 13.73 ± 2.98 (5 - 20) | 13.30 ± 2.49 (8 - 20) | 14.16 ± 3.37 (5 - 20) | 0.214 |
els_value_living | 74 | 17.28 ± 2.91 (5 - 25) | 16.65 ± 2.34 (12 - 22) | 17.92 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.060 |
els_life_fulfill | 74 | 12.82 ± 3.32 (4 - 20) | 11.81 ± 3.04 (5 - 17) | 13.84 ± 3.31 (4 - 20) | 0.008 |
els | 74 | 30.11 ± 5.61 (9 - 45) | 28.46 ± 4.44 (20 - 36) | 31.76 ± 6.21 (9 - 45) | 0.010 |
social_connect | 74 | 27.09 ± 9.47 (8 - 48) | 27.95 ± 8.31 (8 - 45) | 26.24 ± 10.55 (8 - 48) | 0.443 |
shs_agency | 74 | 14.53 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 4.52 (3 - 21) | 15.22 ± 5.30 (3 - 24) | 0.233 |
shs_pathway | 74 | 16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24) | 16.11 ± 3.81 (8 - 24) | 17.14 ± 4.14 (4 - 23) | 0.270 |
shs | 74 | 31.15 ± 8.47 (7 - 47) | 29.95 ± 7.97 (13 - 45) | 32.35 ± 8.89 (7 - 47) | 0.224 |
esteem | 74 | 12.64 ± 1.52 (10 - 18) | 12.86 ± 1.55 (10 - 18) | 12.41 ± 1.48 (10 - 16) | 0.196 |
mlq_search | 74 | 14.91 ± 3.30 (3 - 21) | 14.84 ± 3.09 (6 - 21) | 14.97 ± 3.54 (3 - 21) | 0.862 |
mlq_presence | 74 | 13.49 ± 4.08 (3 - 21) | 13.41 ± 3.50 (5 - 20) | 13.57 ± 4.64 (3 - 21) | 0.866 |
mlq | 74 | 28.39 ± 6.56 (6 - 42) | 28.24 ± 5.79 (12 - 40) | 28.54 ± 7.32 (6 - 42) | 0.847 |
empower | 74 | 19.54 ± 4.09 (6 - 28) | 19.08 ± 3.71 (11 - 24) | 20.00 ± 4.43 (6 - 28) | 0.337 |
ismi_resistance | 74 | 14.68 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 14.32 ± 2.21 (11 - 19) | 15.03 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 0.266 |
ismi_discrimation | 74 | 11.26 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 12.22 ± 2.79 (5 - 18) | 10.30 ± 3.31 (5 - 19) | 0.009 |
sss_affective | 74 | 9.92 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 10.43 ± 3.44 (3 - 18) | 9.41 ± 4.08 (3 - 18) | 0.246 |
sss_behavior | 74 | 9.51 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 10.27 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 8.76 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.104 |
sss_cognitive | 74 | 8.24 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 8.59 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 7.89 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.449 |
sss | 74 | 27.68 ± 10.88 (9 - 54) | 29.30 ± 10.41 (9 - 54) | 26.05 ± 11.23 (9 - 54) | 0.202 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.11 | 0.198 | 2.72, 3.50 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.054 | 0.280 | -0.495, 0.603 | 0.847 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.162 | 0.287 | -0.400, 0.724 | 0.574 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.131 | 0.406 | -0.664, 0.926 | 0.748 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.437 | 17.1, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.135 | 0.618 | -1.08, 1.35 | 0.827 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.386 | 0.597 | -1.56, 0.785 | 0.521 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.876 | 0.845 | -0.780, 2.53 | 0.304 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 0.820 | 28.3, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 1.159 | -1.22, 3.33 | 0.366 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.316 | 0.811 | -1.27, 1.91 | 0.698 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.406 | 1.147 | -1.84, 2.65 | 0.725 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.329 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.432 | 0.466 | -0.480, 1.34 | 0.356 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.633 | 0.319 | -1.26, -0.009 | 0.053 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.533 | 0.451 | -0.351, 1.42 | 0.243 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.516 | 16.5, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.162 | 0.730 | -1.27, 1.59 | 0.825 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.912 | 0.551 | -1.99, 0.168 | 0.105 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.61 | 0.780 | 0.084, 3.14 | 0.044 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.449 | 12.1, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.405 | 0.635 | -0.840, 1.65 | 0.525 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.454 | 0.408 | -0.346, 1.25 | 0.272 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.534 | 0.577 | -0.597, 1.67 | 0.360 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.367 | 9.80, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.05 | 0.518 | -2.07, -0.038 | 0.045 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.634 | 0.467 | -1.55, 0.281 | 0.181 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.50 | 0.660 | 0.209, 2.80 | 0.027 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.2 | 1.607 | 28.1, 34.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.22 | 2.272 | -6.67, 2.24 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.066 | 1.168 | -2.22, 2.36 | 0.955 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.702 | 1.652 | -3.94, 2.54 | 0.673 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.7 | 0.812 | 21.1, 24.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.243 | 1.148 | -2.01, 2.49 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.723 | 0.621 | -1.94, 0.495 | 0.251 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.446 | 0.879 | -2.17, 1.28 | 0.614 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.5 | 0.979 | 23.6, 27.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.622 | 1.384 | -2.09, 3.33 | 0.655 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.06 | 0.895 | -2.81, 0.699 | 0.245 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.740 | 1.266 | -1.74, 3.22 | 0.562 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 1.136 | 17.0, 21.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.11 | 1.607 | -0.042, 6.26 | 0.056 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.745 | 1.169 | -1.55, 3.04 | 0.527 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.28 | 1.653 | -4.52, 1.96 | 0.441 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.625 | 9.48, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 0.883 | -0.731, 2.73 | 0.261 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.482 | 0.533 | -0.563, 1.53 | 0.371 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 0.754 | -2.67, 0.287 | 0.122 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.929 | 13.3, 17.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.595 | 1.313 | -3.17, 1.98 | 0.652 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 0.894 | -0.668, 2.83 | 0.232 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.56 | 1.264 | -4.04, 0.912 | 0.223 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 1.045 | 19.7, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 1.478 | -1.84, 3.95 | 0.478 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.643 | 1.024 | -1.36, 2.65 | 0.533 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.52 | 1.448 | -4.36, 1.32 | 0.300 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.713 | 14.9, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.595 | 1.009 | -1.38, 2.57 | 0.557 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.163 | 0.726 | -1.26, 1.59 | 0.823 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.571 | 1.027 | -1.44, 2.58 | 0.581 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.496 | 12.3, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.865 | 0.702 | -0.511, 2.24 | 0.221 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.940 | 0.551 | -2.02, 0.141 | 0.095 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.849 | 0.780 | -0.680, 2.38 | 0.282 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.476 | 15.7, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.27 | 0.673 | -0.049, 2.59 | 0.063 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.276 | 0.453 | -0.611, 1.16 | 0.545 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.087 | 0.640 | -1.34, 1.17 | 0.892 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.507 | 10.8, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.03 | 0.717 | 0.622, 3.43 | 0.006 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.914 | 0.482 | -0.031, 1.86 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.935 | 0.682 | -2.27, 0.401 | 0.177 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.080 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 0.883 | 26.7, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.30 | 1.248 | 0.851, 5.74 | 0.010 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.767 | -0.337, 2.67 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.975 | 1.084 | -3.10, 1.15 | 0.374 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.076 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 1.560 | 24.9, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.70 | 2.206 | -6.03, 2.62 | 0.442 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.755 | 1.154 | -1.51, 3.02 | 0.516 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.27 | 1.632 | -4.47, 1.93 | 0.440 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.811 | 12.2, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.38 | 1.147 | -0.870, 3.63 | 0.233 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.290 | 0.774 | -1.23, 1.81 | 0.710 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.251 | 1.095 | -1.90, 2.40 | 0.820 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.652 | 14.8, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.923 | -0.781, 2.84 | 0.269 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.372 | 0.598 | -0.800, 1.54 | 0.537 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.620 | 0.846 | -2.28, 1.04 | 0.467 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.381 | 27.2, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.41 | 1.953 | -1.42, 6.23 | 0.222 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.663 | 1.248 | -1.78, 3.11 | 0.598 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.360 | 1.764 | -3.82, 3.10 | 0.840 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.233 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.459 | 0.330 | -1.11, 0.187 | 0.167 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.152 | 0.353 | -0.540, 0.844 | 0.669 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.182 | 0.499 | -0.796, 1.16 | 0.718 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.551 | 13.8, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.135 | 0.779 | -1.39, 1.66 | 0.863 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.396 | 0.656 | -1.68, 0.891 | 0.549 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.336 | 0.928 | -1.48, 2.16 | 0.719 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.659 | 12.1, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.162 | 0.932 | -1.66, 1.99 | 0.862 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.079 | 0.732 | -1.51, 1.36 | 0.915 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.058 | 1.036 | -1.97, 2.09 | 0.955 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.095 | 26.1, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.297 | 1.549 | -2.74, 3.33 | 0.848 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.475 | 1.246 | -2.92, 1.97 | 0.705 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.387 | 1.763 | -3.07, 3.84 | 0.827 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.655 | 17.8, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.919 | 0.926 | -0.897, 2.73 | 0.324 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.255 | 0.574 | -1.38, 0.870 | 0.659 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.393 | 0.812 | -1.98, 1.20 | 0.631 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.416 | 13.5, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.703 | 0.589 | -0.452, 1.86 | 0.236 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.165 | 0.551 | -0.915, 1.24 | 0.766 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.337 | 0.779 | -1.86, 1.19 | 0.667 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.514 | 11.2, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.92 | 0.728 | -3.34, -0.493 | 0.010 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.518 | 0.536 | -1.57, 0.533 | 0.339 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.683 | 0.758 | -0.804, 2.17 | 0.373 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.071 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.600 | 9.26, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.03 | 0.849 | -2.69, 0.636 | 0.230 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.221 | 0.509 | -0.776, 1.22 | 0.666 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.20 | 0.720 | -2.61, 0.207 | 0.102 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.622 | 9.05, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.51 | 0.879 | -3.24, 0.210 | 0.089 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.249 | 0.620 | -1.47, 0.967 | 0.690 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.553 | 0.877 | -2.27, 1.17 | 0.532 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.59 | 0.639 | 7.34, 9.85 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.703 | 0.903 | -2.47, 1.07 | 0.439 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.514 | 0.015, 2.03 | 0.053 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.96 | 0.727 | -3.39, -0.537 | 0.010 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.728 | 25.9, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.24 | 2.444 | -8.03, 1.55 | 0.188 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.06 | 1.327 | -1.54, 3.66 | 0.428 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.77 | 1.876 | -7.45, -0.092 | 0.051 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.50], t(108) = 15.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.60], t(108) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.72], t(108) = 0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.93], t(108) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.09, 18.80], t(108) = 41.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.35], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.78], t(108) = -0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.53], t(108) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.89 (95% CI [28.29, 31.50], t(108) = 36.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.33], t(108) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.91], t(108) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.84, 2.65], t(108) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.27, 12.56], t(108) = 36.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.34], t(108) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -8.62e-03], t(108) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.62, -4.28e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.42], t(108) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.48, 18.50], t(108) = 33.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.59], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(108) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [0.08, 3.14], t(108) = 2.07, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.03, 0.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.09, 13.85], t(108) = 28.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.65], t(108) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(108) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.67], t(108) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.80, 11.23], t(108) = 28.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.07, -0.04], t(108) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.28], t(108) = -1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [0.21, 2.80], t(108) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.67, 95% CI [0.09, 1.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.24 (95% CI [28.09, 34.39], t(108) = 19.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.22, 95% CI [-6.67, 2.24], t(108) = -0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.36], t(108) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 6.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.94, 2.54], t(108) = -0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.68 (95% CI [21.08, 24.27], t(108) = 27.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.49], t(108) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.50], t(108) = -1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.17, 1.28], t(108) = -0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.51 (95% CI [23.60, 27.43], t(108) = 26.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.33], t(108) = 0.45, p = 0.653; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.70], t(108) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.74, 3.22], t(108) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.22 (95% CI [16.99, 21.44], t(108) = 16.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 6.26], t(108) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-5.94e-03, 0.89])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.55, 3.04], t(108) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-4.52, 1.96], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.70 (95% CI [9.48, 11.93], t(108) = 17.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.73], t(108) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.53], t(108) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.29], t(108) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.34, 16.98], t(108) = 16.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.17, 1.98], t(108) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.83], t(108) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.04, 0.91], t(108) = -1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.76 (95% CI [19.71, 23.80], t(108) = 20.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.84, 3.95], t(108) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.65], t(108) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-4.36, 1.32], t(108) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.32 (95% CI [14.93, 17.72], t(108) = 22.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.57], t(108) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.59], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.58], t(108) = 0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.32, 14.27], t(108) = 26.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.24], t(108) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.14], t(108) = -1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.38], t(108) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.65 (95% CI [15.72, 17.58], t(108) = 34.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.59], t(108) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(108) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.17], t(108) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.81 (95% CI [10.82, 12.80], t(108) = 23.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.62, 3.43], t(108) = 2.83, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.20, 1.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.86], t(108) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-9.70e-03, 0.58])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.40], t(108) = -1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.46 (95% CI [26.73, 30.19], t(108) = 32.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.30, 95% CI [0.85, 5.74], t(108) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.67], t(108) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-3.10, 1.15], t(108) = -0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.95 (95% CI [24.89, 31.00], t(108) = 17.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-6.03, 2.62], t(108) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.51, 3.02], t(108) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.93], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.25, 15.43], t(108) = 17.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.63], t(108) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.81], t(108) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.40], t(108) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.83, 17.39], t(108) = 24.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.84], t(108) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.54], t(108) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.04], t(108) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.24, 32.65], t(108) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.23], t(108) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.11], t(108) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-3.82, 3.10], t(108) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.41, 13.32], t(108) = 55.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19], t(108) = -1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.84], t(108) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.16], t(108) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.76, 15.92], t(108) = 26.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.66], t(108) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.89], t(108) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.16], t(108) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.70e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.41 (95% CI [12.11, 14.70], t(108) = 20.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.99], t(108) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.36], t(108) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.09], t(108) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [26.10, 30.39], t(108) = 25.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.74, 3.33], t(108) = 0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.92, 1.97], t(108) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.84], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.80, 20.37], t(108) = 29.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.73], t(108) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.87], t(108) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.20], t(108) = -0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.51, 15.14], t(108) = 34.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.86], t(108) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.24], t(108) = 0.30, p = 0.765; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.19], t(108) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.21, 13.22], t(108) = 23.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.34, -0.49], t(108) = -2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.53], t(108) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.17], t(108) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.26, 11.61], t(108) = 17.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.69, 0.64], t(108) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.22], t(108) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.21], t(108) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.05, 11.49], t(108) = 16.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.24, 0.21], t(108) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.97], t(108) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.27, 1.17], t(108) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.59 (95% CI [7.34, 9.85], t(108) = 13.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.07], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.01, 2.03], t(108) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [3.80e-03, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.96, 95% CI [-3.39, -0.54], t(108) = -2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.30 (95% CI [25.91, 32.68], t(108) = 16.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.24, 95% CI [-8.03, 1.55], t(108) = -1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.66], t(108) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.77, 95% CI [-7.45, -0.09], t(108) = -2.01, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.69, -8.58e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 364.816 | 373.024 | -179.408 | 358.816 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 369.286 | 385.703 | -178.643 | 357.286 | 1.530 | 3 | 0.675 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 542.424 | 550.633 | -268.212 | 536.424 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 546.757 | 563.174 | -267.379 | 534.757 | 1.667 | 3 | 0.644 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 665.000 | 673.208 | -329.500 | 659.000 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 668.883 | 685.300 | -328.441 | 656.883 | 2.117 | 3 | 0.548 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 459.040 | 467.248 | -226.520 | 453.040 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 459.345 | 475.763 | -223.673 | 447.345 | 5.695 | 3 | 0.127 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 568.026 | 576.235 | -281.013 | 562.026 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 568.796 | 585.213 | -278.398 | 556.796 | 5.230 | 3 | 0.156 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 527.416 | 535.625 | -260.708 | 521.416 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 525.562 | 541.980 | -256.781 | 513.562 | 7.854 | 3 | 0.049 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 503.246 | 511.454 | -248.623 | 497.246 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 502.451 | 518.868 | -245.226 | 490.451 | 6.795 | 3 | 0.079 |
symptom | null | 3 | 794.945 | 803.154 | -394.472 | 788.945 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 799.422 | 815.839 | -393.711 | 787.422 | 1.523 | 3 | 0.677 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 646.475 | 654.683 | -320.237 | 640.475 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 647.615 | 664.033 | -317.808 | 635.615 | 4.859 | 3 | 0.182 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 699.561 | 707.769 | -346.780 | 693.561 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 703.625 | 720.042 | -345.813 | 691.625 | 1.935 | 3 | 0.586 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 743.957 | 752.166 | -368.979 | 737.957 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 746.110 | 762.527 | -367.055 | 734.110 | 3.847 | 3 | 0.278 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 593.388 | 601.596 | -293.694 | 587.388 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 596.146 | 612.563 | -292.073 | 584.146 | 3.241 | 3 | 0.356 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 691.850 | 700.059 | -342.925 | 685.850 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 695.345 | 711.762 | -341.673 | 683.345 | 2.505 | 3 | 0.474 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 718.905 | 727.114 | -356.453 | 712.905 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 723.550 | 739.967 | -355.775 | 711.550 | 1.356 | 3 | 0.716 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 634.913 | 643.121 | -314.456 | 628.913 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 639.164 | 655.582 | -313.582 | 627.164 | 1.748 | 3 | 0.626 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 562.428 | 570.637 | -278.214 | 556.428 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 562.621 | 579.038 | -275.310 | 550.621 | 5.808 | 3 | 0.121 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 540.454 | 548.662 | -267.227 | 534.454 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 542.151 | 558.568 | -265.075 | 530.151 | 4.303 | 3 | 0.231 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 560.445 | 568.654 | -277.223 | 554.445 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 556.453 | 572.870 | -272.226 | 544.453 | 9.993 | 3 | 0.019 |
els | null | 3 | 678.785 | 686.993 | -336.392 | 672.785 | |||
els | random | 6 | 676.219 | 692.636 | -332.110 | 664.219 | 8.565 | 3 | 0.036 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 789.549 | 797.758 | -391.775 | 783.549 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 793.961 | 810.378 | -390.980 | 781.961 | 1.588 | 3 | 0.662 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 660.340 | 668.548 | -327.170 | 654.340 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 663.922 | 680.340 | -325.961 | 651.922 | 2.417 | 3 | 0.490 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 606.774 | 614.982 | -300.387 | 600.774 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 611.259 | 627.676 | -299.629 | 599.259 | 1.515 | 3 | 0.679 |
shs | null | 3 | 777.072 | 785.281 | -385.536 | 771.072 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 781.198 | 797.615 | -384.599 | 769.198 | 1.874 | 3 | 0.599 |
esteem | null | 3 | 405.540 | 413.749 | -199.770 | 399.540 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 408.460 | 424.877 | -198.230 | 396.460 | 3.080 | 3 | 0.379 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 585.528 | 593.737 | -289.764 | 579.528 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 591.032 | 607.449 | -289.516 | 579.032 | 0.496 | 3 | 0.920 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 621.279 | 629.487 | -307.639 | 615.279 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 627.221 | 643.639 | -307.611 | 615.221 | 0.057 | 3 | 0.996 |
mlq | null | 3 | 738.974 | 747.182 | -366.487 | 732.974 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 744.732 | 761.150 | -366.366 | 732.732 | 0.241 | 3 | 0.971 |
empower | null | 3 | 605.274 | 613.483 | -299.637 | 599.274 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 608.931 | 625.348 | -298.465 | 596.931 | 2.344 | 3 | 0.504 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 529.306 | 537.514 | -261.653 | 523.306 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 533.840 | 550.257 | -260.920 | 521.840 | 1.465 | 3 | 0.690 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 567.533 | 575.741 | -280.766 | 561.533 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 566.388 | 582.805 | -277.194 | 554.388 | 7.145 | 3 | 0.067 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 587.208 | 595.416 | -290.604 | 581.208 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 586.490 | 602.907 | -287.245 | 574.490 | 6.717 | 3 | 0.081 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 606.310 | 614.519 | -300.155 | 600.310 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 606.477 | 622.894 | -297.238 | 594.477 | 5.833 | 3 | 0.120 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 599.592 | 607.800 | -296.796 | 593.592 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 596.744 | 613.161 | -292.372 | 584.744 | 8.847 | 3 | 0.031 |
sss | null | 3 | 822.189 | 830.398 | -408.095 | 816.189 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 820.167 | 836.584 | -404.083 | 808.167 | 8.022 | 3 | 0.046 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 37 | 3.11 ± 1.20 | 37 | 3.16 ± 1.20 | 0.847 | -0.055 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 20 | 3.27 ± 1.19 | -0.164 | 20 | 3.46 ± 1.19 | -0.297 | 0.623 | -0.187 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 37 | 17.95 ± 2.66 | 37 | 18.08 ± 2.66 | 0.827 | -0.067 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 20 | 17.56 ± 2.57 | 0.190 | 20 | 18.57 ± 2.57 | -0.242 | 0.217 | -0.498 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 37 | 29.89 ± 4.99 | 37 | 30.95 ± 4.99 | 0.366 | -0.397 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 20 | 30.21 ± 4.37 | -0.119 | 20 | 31.67 ± 4.37 | -0.273 | 0.293 | -0.551 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 37 | 11.92 ± 2.00 | 37 | 12.35 ± 2.00 | 0.356 | -0.415 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 20 | 11.29 ± 1.75 | 0.609 | 20 | 12.25 ± 1.75 | 0.096 | 0.083 | -0.928 |
ras_goal | 1st | 37 | 17.49 ± 3.14 | 37 | 17.65 ± 3.14 | 0.825 | -0.089 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 20 | 16.57 ± 2.81 | 0.503 | 20 | 18.35 ± 2.81 | -0.386 | 0.048 | -0.978 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 37 | 12.97 ± 2.73 | 37 | 13.38 ± 2.73 | 0.525 | -0.305 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 20 | 13.43 ± 2.34 | -0.342 | 20 | 14.37 ± 2.34 | -0.744 | 0.208 | -0.708 |
ras_domination | 1st | 37 | 10.51 ± 2.23 | 37 | 9.46 ± 2.23 | 0.045 | 0.672 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 20 | 9.88 ± 2.11 | 0.404 | 20 | 10.33 ± 2.11 | -0.555 | 0.502 | -0.286 |
symptom | 1st | 37 | 31.24 ± 9.77 | 37 | 29.03 ± 9.77 | 0.332 | 0.590 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 20 | 31.31 ± 7.99 | -0.018 | 20 | 28.39 ± 7.99 | 0.169 | 0.251 | 0.776 |
slof_work | 1st | 37 | 22.68 ± 4.94 | 37 | 22.92 ± 4.94 | 0.833 | -0.121 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 20 | 21.95 ± 4.07 | 0.361 | 20 | 21.75 ± 4.07 | 0.584 | 0.875 | 0.101 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 37 | 25.51 ± 5.95 | 37 | 26.14 ± 5.95 | 0.655 | -0.213 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 20 | 24.46 ± 5.11 | 0.363 | 20 | 25.82 ± 5.11 | 0.109 | 0.402 | -0.467 |
satisfaction | 1st | 37 | 19.22 ± 6.91 | 37 | 22.32 ± 6.91 | 0.056 | -0.811 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 20 | 19.96 ± 6.13 | -0.194 | 20 | 21.79 ± 6.13 | 0.140 | 0.348 | -0.476 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 37 | 10.70 ± 3.80 | 37 | 11.70 ± 3.80 | 0.261 | -0.579 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 20 | 11.18 ± 3.21 | -0.279 | 20 | 10.99 ± 3.21 | 0.410 | 0.851 | 0.111 |
mhc_social | 1st | 37 | 15.16 ± 5.65 | 37 | 14.57 ± 5.65 | 0.652 | 0.204 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 20 | 16.25 ± 4.92 | -0.371 | 20 | 14.09 ± 4.92 | 0.165 | 0.168 | 0.740 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 37 | 21.76 ± 6.36 | 37 | 22.81 ± 6.36 | 0.478 | -0.315 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 20 | 22.40 ± 5.56 | -0.192 | 20 | 21.94 ± 5.56 | 0.262 | 0.792 | 0.139 |
resilisnce | 1st | 37 | 16.32 ± 4.34 | 37 | 16.92 ± 4.34 | 0.557 | -0.250 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 20 | 16.49 ± 3.83 | -0.069 | 20 | 17.65 ± 3.83 | -0.309 | 0.338 | -0.490 |
social_provision | 1st | 37 | 13.30 ± 3.02 | 37 | 14.16 ± 3.02 | 0.221 | -0.475 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 20 | 12.36 ± 2.74 | 0.516 | 20 | 14.07 ± 2.74 | 0.050 | 0.050 | -0.941 |
els_value_living | 1st | 37 | 16.65 ± 2.90 | 37 | 17.92 ± 2.90 | 0.063 | -0.860 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 20 | 16.92 ± 2.51 | -0.187 | 20 | 18.11 ± 2.51 | -0.128 | 0.139 | -0.801 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 37 | 11.81 ± 3.08 | 37 | 13.84 ± 3.08 | 0.006 | -1.289 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 20 | 12.73 ± 2.67 | -0.581 | 20 | 13.82 ± 2.67 | 0.013 | 0.199 | -0.694 |
els | 1st | 37 | 28.46 ± 5.37 | 37 | 31.76 ± 5.37 | 0.010 | -1.326 | ||
els | 2nd | 20 | 29.63 ± 4.55 | -0.469 | 20 | 31.95 ± 4.55 | -0.077 | 0.110 | -0.934 |
social_connect | 1st | 37 | 27.95 ± 9.49 | 37 | 26.24 ± 9.49 | 0.442 | 0.458 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 20 | 28.70 ± 7.78 | -0.203 | 20 | 25.73 ± 7.78 | 0.139 | 0.229 | 0.801 |
shs_agency | 1st | 37 | 13.84 ± 4.93 | 37 | 15.22 ± 4.93 | 0.233 | -0.546 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 20 | 14.13 ± 4.28 | -0.115 | 20 | 15.76 ± 4.28 | -0.214 | 0.232 | -0.645 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 37 | 16.11 ± 3.97 | 37 | 17.14 ± 3.97 | 0.269 | -0.528 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 20 | 16.48 ± 3.41 | -0.191 | 20 | 16.89 ± 3.41 | 0.128 | 0.707 | -0.209 |
shs | 1st | 37 | 29.95 ± 8.40 | 37 | 32.35 ± 8.40 | 0.222 | -0.593 | ||
shs | 2nd | 20 | 30.61 ± 7.19 | -0.163 | 20 | 32.65 ± 7.19 | -0.075 | 0.370 | -0.504 |
esteem | 1st | 37 | 12.86 ± 1.42 | 37 | 12.41 ± 1.42 | 0.166 | 0.375 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 20 | 13.02 ± 1.41 | -0.124 | 20 | 12.74 ± 1.41 | -0.272 | 0.535 | 0.226 |
mlq_search | 1st | 37 | 14.84 ± 3.35 | 37 | 14.97 ± 3.35 | 0.863 | -0.062 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 20 | 14.44 ± 3.10 | 0.181 | 20 | 14.91 ± 3.10 | 0.027 | 0.632 | -0.216 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 37 | 13.41 ± 4.01 | 37 | 13.57 ± 4.01 | 0.862 | -0.067 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 20 | 13.33 ± 3.63 | 0.032 | 20 | 13.55 ± 3.63 | 0.008 | 0.848 | -0.091 |
mlq | 1st | 37 | 28.24 ± 6.66 | 37 | 28.54 ± 6.66 | 0.848 | -0.072 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 20 | 27.77 ± 6.08 | 0.115 | 20 | 28.45 ± 6.08 | 0.021 | 0.723 | -0.166 |
empower | 1st | 37 | 19.08 ± 3.98 | 37 | 20.00 ± 3.98 | 0.324 | -0.493 | ||
empower | 2nd | 20 | 18.83 ± 3.39 | 0.137 | 20 | 19.35 ± 3.39 | 0.348 | 0.624 | -0.282 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 37 | 14.32 ± 2.53 | 37 | 15.03 ± 2.53 | 0.236 | -0.378 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 20 | 14.49 ± 2.43 | -0.089 | 20 | 14.85 ± 2.43 | 0.093 | 0.635 | -0.196 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 37 | 12.22 ± 3.13 | 37 | 10.30 ± 3.13 | 0.010 | 1.090 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 20 | 11.70 ± 2.78 | 0.294 | 20 | 10.46 ± 2.78 | -0.093 | 0.163 | 0.702 |
sss_affective | 1st | 37 | 10.43 ± 3.65 | 37 | 9.41 ± 3.65 | 0.230 | 0.623 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 20 | 10.65 ± 3.08 | -0.134 | 20 | 8.42 ± 3.08 | 0.596 | 0.024 | 1.353 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 37 | 10.27 ± 3.78 | 37 | 8.76 ± 3.78 | 0.089 | 0.745 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 20 | 10.02 ± 3.32 | 0.123 | 20 | 7.95 ± 3.32 | 0.395 | 0.052 | 1.018 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 37 | 8.59 ± 3.88 | 37 | 7.89 ± 3.88 | 0.439 | 0.423 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 20 | 9.62 ± 3.24 | -0.615 | 20 | 6.95 ± 3.24 | 0.566 | 0.011 | 1.604 |
sss | 1st | 37 | 29.30 ± 10.51 | 37 | 26.05 ± 10.51 | 0.188 | 0.758 | ||
sss | 2nd | 20 | 30.36 ± 8.68 | -0.248 | 20 | 23.35 ± 8.68 | 0.633 | 0.012 | 1.639 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(102.54) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.61)
2st
t(109.51) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.93)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(98.71) = 0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.36)
2st
t(109.53) = 1.24, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.62)
ras_confidence
1st
t(84.20) = 0.91, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to 3.36)
2st
t(109.21) = 1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.20)
ras_willingness
1st
t(83.59) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.36)
2st
t(108.92) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.06)
ras_goal
1st
t(86.66) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.61)
2st
t(109.86) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.54)
ras_reliance
1st
t(81.98) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.67)
2st
t(107.81) = 1.27, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.41)
ras_domination
1st
t(94.52) = -2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.02)
2st
t(109.73) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.77)
symptom
1st
t(78.03) = -0.98, p = 0.332, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-6.74 to 2.31)
2st
t(101.46) = -1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-7.93 to 2.09)
slof_work
1st
t(78.76) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.53)
2st
t(103.17) = -0.16, p = 0.875, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.76 to 2.35)
slof_relationship
1st
t(82.15) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.13 to 3.38)
2st
t(107.95) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 4.57)
satisfaction
1st
t(85.37) = 1.93, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.09 to 6.30)
2st
t(109.60) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.01 to 5.66)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(80.66) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.76)
2st
t(106.38) = -0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.20 to 1.82)
mhc_social
1st
t(83.41) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.21 to 2.02)
2st
t(108.83) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-5.24 to 0.92)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(83.93) = 0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.99)
2st
t(109.09) = -0.26, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.95 to 3.02)
resilisnce
1st
t(85.05) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.60)
2st
t(109.51) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.57)
social_provision
1st
t(88.12) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.26)
2st
t(109.98) = 1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.00 to 3.43)
els_value_living
1st
t(83.11) = 1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.61)
2st
t(108.65) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.76)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(83.11) = 2.83, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.29, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.45)
2st
t(108.65) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.77)
els
1st
t(81.00) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.33, 95% CI (0.81 to 5.78)
2st
t(106.81) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.53 to 5.18)
social_connect
1st
t(78.27) = -0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-6.09 to 2.69)
2st
t(102.05) = -1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-7.85 to 1.90)
shs_agency
1st
t(83.21) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.90 to 3.66)
2st
t(108.71) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.06 to 4.31)
shs_pathway
1st
t(82.19) = 1.11, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)
2st
t(107.99) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.54)
shs
1st
t(81.85) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.48 to 6.29)
2st
t(107.70) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.46 to 6.55)
esteem
1st
t(105.45) = -1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.19)
2st
t(109.62) = -0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.61)
mlq_search
1st
t(91.15) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.68)
2st
t(109.94) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.42)
mlq_presence
1st
t(88.14) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.01)
2st
t(109.98) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.50)
mlq
1st
t(89.08) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.78 to 3.37)
2st
t(110.00) = 0.36, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-3.13 to 4.50)
empower
1st
t(81.19) = 0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.76)
2st
t(107.02) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.65)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(96.73) = 1.19, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.87)
2st
t(109.61) = 0.48, p = 0.635, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.89)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(85.81) = -2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.09, 95% CI (-3.37 to -0.47)
2st
t(109.71) = -1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.51)
sss_affective
1st
t(80.52) = -1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.66)
2st
t(106.20) = -2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.16 to -0.30)
sss_behavior
1st
t(84.44) = -1.72, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.26 to 0.23)
2st
t(109.31) = -1.97, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-4.15 to 0.02)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(79.57) = -0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.09)
2st
t(104.74) = -2.60, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-4.70 to -0.63)
sss
1st
t(78.80) = -1.33, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-8.11 to 1.62)
2st
t(103.26) = -2.55, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-12.46 to -1.57)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(54.03) = 1.01, p = 0.631, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.87)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(51.46) = 0.81, p = 0.838, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.70)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(43.70) = 0.89, p = 0.760, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.37)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(43.41) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.55)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(44.90) = 1.26, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.82)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(42.64) = 2.41, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.81)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(49.00) = 1.85, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.81)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(40.78) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.00 to 1.73)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(41.12) = -1.88, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.43 to 0.09)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(42.72) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.13 to 1.50)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(44.27) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.83)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(42.01) = -1.32, p = 0.385, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.37)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(43.32) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.33)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(43.57) = -0.85, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.95 to 1.20)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(44.11) = 1.01, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.20)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(45.63) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.03)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(43.17) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.11)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(43.18) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.96)
els
1st vs 2st
t(42.18) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.74)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(40.89) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.85 to 1.82)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(43.22) = 0.70, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.11)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(42.74) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.96)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(42.58) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.22 to 2.83)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(56.40) = 0.94, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.05)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(47.18) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.27)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(45.64) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.46)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(46.11) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.61 to 2.44)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(42.26) = -1.12, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(50.26) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.94)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(44.48) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.25)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(41.95) = -1.92, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.05)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(43.82) = -1.29, p = 0.410, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.45)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(41.50) = -1.82, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.10)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(41.14) = -2.04, p = 0.097, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.40 to -0.02)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(54.03) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.74)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(51.46) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.82)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(43.70) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.96)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(43.41) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(44.90) = -1.65, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.20)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(42.64) = 1.11, p = 0.549, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(49.00) = -1.35, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.31)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(40.78) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.43)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(41.12) = -1.16, p = 0.506, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.54)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(42.72) = -1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.87 to 0.76)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(44.27) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.11)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(42.01) = 0.90, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.56)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(43.32) = 1.21, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.89)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(43.57) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.72)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(44.11) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.63)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(45.63) = -1.69, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.18)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(43.17) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(43.18) = 1.89, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.89)
els
1st vs 2st
t(42.18) = 1.52, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.72)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(40.89) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.09)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(43.22) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.86)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(42.74) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.58)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(42.58) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.19)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(56.40) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.86)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(47.18) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.93)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(45.64) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.40)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(46.11) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.00 to 2.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(42.26) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.91)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(50.26) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.28)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(44.48) = -0.96, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.57)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(41.95) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.25)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(43.82) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.01)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(41.50) = 1.98, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.06)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(41.14) = 0.80, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.75)